[Richard_Goodale]

In the last 12 months I have played the following new/newish courses:

Barona Creek
Applebrook
Kingsbarns
Pacific Dunes
Bandon Dunes
Stevinson Ranch
Olympic (Ocean)
Cinnabar Hills

..as well as a few that I am too polite to mention......

I have also walked Friar's Head and played a lot of the oldies but goodies that this site reveres, as well as some hidden gems and hidden pieces of crap.

Barona is not perfect by any means, but, in my humble opinion it is every bit as good as any of the others listed above.  My real question is:

What's right with it, or wrong with it vis a vis say Bandon, or Applebrook, or Pacific Dunes.  To this old trooper I can't see a dime's worth of distance between the 4 of them.  How stupid am I?  Or, how misinformed are the people that rate this course so lowly compared to its brethren with more blue-blooded architectural pedigrees?

Just wondering.

Those who have played most of the above courses, please reply.  Those who have not, please reply also, but with a caveat or two.

Cheers

Rich
 

[Tim_Weiman]

Rich,

I haven't seen Barona, so all I can do is ask you to offer an opinion yourself

What do you think?  

P.S.  It looks to me like you haven't had a bad year!

[John_D._Bernhardt]

Rich, I have played 4 of them. Barona, Olympic Ocean, Pacific Dunes and Kingsbarns. Each of them are very good courses. Each of them appear very natural and a reflection of character of the land. All have wonderful flow and challenge the whole range of shots. Each offers great strategic options. Kingsbarns is a product of great work to create a natural course while moving incredible amounts of dirt to achieve the ends. They in many ways reflect the architectual values this site tends to push for. Olympic Ocean is very different from the Lake and to my mind always will be the second course there. I believe on the other hand Pacfic dunes will surpass Bandon Dunes and become the course of choice at bandon. Kingsbarns should become the 2nd course in Fife after TOC.
None of these courses to me are bears or course where you talk difficulty from the get go. These are wonderful well designed, strategic courses that reflect the best of their particular area and geography and culture. I will save the critical parts for later for after playing with Todd and playing with Tom D during construction of Pacific and riding around Olympic Ocean during construction with Gib, I would like to think more before tossing out quick negatives. Of course I asked Todd about 12 and 16 while we were playing. I feel the right 1/3 of the front left trap on 12 should be removed and the landing area in front of the green expanded to allow for ground shots on a down wind hole. Only a very well struck shot, even a sand wedge will hold at all on the green. I feel that is not good for a resort course. One needs an option for the 10 plus handicappers. Todd has some ideas there himself which he may discuss with us. I am not sure the native grass in front of the tees and on the bunkers will survive the hotel opening and the type of player that will come from that. It may slow down play too much. I love the course the variety of holes and how they flow. It is a great golf course.

[THuckaby2]

Rich - out of those on your list, I've played all except Kingsbarns in this timeframe.

And you know what?  If you're just talking general quality, ie do they belong in the same sentence, than I'd say add Barona and kick out Cinnabar!

But we batted that to death already, didn't we?    Ok, Cinnabar can stay, the price-raising bastards be damned.

There is NOTHING wrong with Barona and it fits on that list most definitely.  Of course we could nit-pick it to death and rank all those one above the other and come up with all sorts of disagreements most likely... but is Barona as good as any of those?

YES.  Definitely.

TH

[George Pazin]

Just further supports the two star three star Michelin approach...

[THuckaby2]

Indeed, George.  But those who need "more" might even give some "half-stars" to distinguish between these!

TH

[THuckaby2]

Hey, Todd opened up the can of worms re #12 himself in his talk, saying how he wanted to add a back tee there to eiliminate the option of going over the far right bunker (for everyone except Josh T., anyway!).

That would solve the problem.  If you are FORCED to stay on top of the hill, then you're hitting a full swing PW or whatever and that will generate enough spin to hold the green, even down wind.

Of course idiot me suggested you go the entire opposite design direction:  cut the grass RIGHT of the bunkers, make it fairway but make it thin and risky, but make that a  viable option.  Move the tees UP also... making driving the green a very risky shot, but possible... and giving some value to trying to find that new right fairway also, to allow for the run up - keeping the greenside traps as is.

What's cool about Todd is he didn't slap me and even humored my amatuerish suggestions!   But I got the idea he really wants people to hit to the top of the hill and play it from there.

TH

[Richard_Goodale]

shivas

Glad to hear you stopped the ball on 16.  I was telling everybody I played with that it was very possible (even though my two attempts failed).  Don Mahaffey and I both held the 12th, each with shots that were a bit too long (i.e. they landed within 5 feet in front of the hole.  I'm sure a proper shot by a proper golfer could have been hit stiff at Sunday's pin locaiton.

Tim

The only thing I can find wrong with it is its immaturity.  The sharp bunker edges need to be softened by time so that balls don't get into unplayable situations at the lips, as I observed a few times.  The native grass areas need to be managed carefully.  If the whole area gets as thick as some of the irrigated areas bounding the fairway were, those 7 hour rounds that shivas speculated on are going to be the order of the day.  Maybe a little tweaking on some of the controversial holes (e.g. 12 and 16).

This a a solid 2** course that, very much like Pacific Dunes and Applebrook has the potential of maturing into 3*** if properly and lovingly managed.  IMHO, of course.

[George Pazin]

Rich -

Can you tell the difference between a 2* & a 3* on only one playing? Or do you need to play several times to pick up the subtleties that elevate a course to 3*?

[Todd_Eckenrode]

I like the comments on #12 re. the right side, but not sure it's an option.  One of the problems, and this was my experiment here, is that the landing area is blind.  This poses a problem for the golf course in tournaments (which they have a lot of), in that they need a marshall to monitor when the group is clear.  I did propose a bell, or some such thing, but a tribal member informed me that they ring a bell when a tribal member passes away, and hearing that every 15 minutes might not go over so well!

Also, going any farther right would put the 11th tees in danger.  We'll see.  Some people love the precision req'd with the shot.  I think they want to build the tees back a bit to ease the "marshall" instances, and we'll see how the green reacts from there.  I think it will be less harsh, as you won't be hitting a shot off a downhill lie, and downwind, which can be difficult to control of course.  Also, you'll be charged with flirting with the right fairway bunkers now to get a shorter shot and better angle, as opposed to just blowing it over them.  The way the drivers are nowadays, with enormous heads and 3-inch sweetspots, it's not that hard to hit a ball solid compared to wooden heads.  As such, that part of strategic design is a little less relative today than years past.

[THuckaby2]

Dammit Todd, what are you, a professional who actually does this for a living or something?  

Thanks for the clarification here, and for humoring me Sunday.  It's funny how the realities of how a course works never occur to a guy like me...

I am here to attest in any case that the shot to the top of the hill left is a good one and the green can be held.  I didn't do it either time this trip, but I swears to ya, I did my previous time!

TH

[Richard_Goodale]

George

My ***s are personal and based on where a course "belongs" rather than any sort of formula.  To me, based on the two rounds there, Barona "belongs" in my 2** group which includes such places as.......

Prestwick
Prairie Dunes
TPC-Sawgrass
Western Gailes
Spyglass
Rye
Pacific Dunes
etc.

....more than it does in my 3*** group, which includes places such as......

Shinnecock
Sandwich
Merion
Muirfield
Newcastle
Dornoch
Pebble Beach
etc.

....and yet it is clearly better, to me, than those in my 1* group such as.........

Stanford
Waterville
Ladybank
Winchester
Gulph Mills
Machrahanish
etc.

These groupings change from time to time in my mind as I get and process more experiences.  They will also change the more times I play a course.  I am sure, for example that Pinehurst #2, which I played at its nadir in 1985, will rise in my mind from 2** to 3*** the next time I play it.

If there ever were a Michelin-type system implemented seriously, it would have some sort of an established set of criteria and numerous "star givers," whose collective work and opinions would be represented by the final "rating."

[Paul Turner]

Rich

How come Rye has dropped a *  

Does Barona have the great terrain that Pacific and Bandon do?

ps W. Gailes better than Machrihanish?  Can't see it.

[Richard_Goodale]

Hi Paul

Vis a vis Rye, my standards of comparison have been upgraded since I last gave my opinion.  It is one of those on he cusp of 2-3*** and could be elevated next time I play it.

I personally think that Barona shows what can be done on what (I suspect) was a piece of washed out desert.  That being said, I thought, and continue to think, that the land on which PD and BD were built is just a little bit better than OK and I think that Doak and Kidd should get a lot more credit than god for their creations.

To me, the only thing that keeps Western Gailes from being a 3*** course is its lack of pretension to be so.  It is very happy being what it is, which is, in its own way, a "perfect" golfing experience.  Machrahianish is a fun golfing experience, but the course does not belong with the likes Gailes, or of SFGC or Hoylake, to name some other of the 2** courses I have played.  In case it makes you feel any better, I also put North Berwick (West) and Westward Ho! in the 1* category.  That puts all of them into about the top 2-300 courses in the world.......

IMO, of course.

[Pete Lavallee]

I think we all owe a debt of gratitude to Todd for creating a most intersting course on a site that even he called "good but not great". I somehow doubt that Kidd and Doak had to convince Mike Keiser that they could probably do something good with the land he gave them. When I look at the surrounding terrain at Barona, I don't see any natural greensites that jump out at me. The two par three that are shown in Pete G's photo thread occupy a great spot. The par 3 7th, a great Redan hole and the par 3 12th (the pic with Todd nailing it at the flag) are right next to each other and are seperated by a nice flat rock formation that connects beautifully into the left bunker on 7, and the right bunker on 12. The uphill valley that the 14th sits in is sure to go down as one of the GREAT risk reward short par 4's. I noticed that noone in our informed GCA crowd could find any way to improve on this hole! But the rest of the interest, seems to me to be very cleverly manufactured. The width the course enjoys provides the starting point for strategy, but its' the outstanding bunkering and wickedly contoured greens that make the course. MacKenzie was right, you get no greater thrill in golf than blasting one over a fearsome looking bunker. You'll get your share of this on numerous holes, with a variety of bunkers that must be carried off the tee to provide the best approach. I also like how the irrigation ponds do not really come into play. That combined with the sparce "native" gives every player the opportunity to find and play their errant shots. Did anyone actually loose a ball this weekend? If Todd does this good a job on a "good site" I for one can't wait to see what happens when he gets a great one.

[johnk]

Rich,

On your example * rankings, all I can say is Wow!
I usually think people are too obsessed by rankings,
but just looking at your list of 2* places, I'm salivating
thinking of how great they are.

A ranking of the top stuff is highly personal.  I'd almost
say that I'd rather play the courses on your 2* list - they
are more "natural  golf" rather than the 3* experiences, which
are kind of like museum field trips...

Also, is Newcastle really that good?  I'd like to hear more
about that.

[Lou Duran]

I concur with the prior opinions, Barona is a fantastic course.  It has a grand scale, and a feel of open space.  Yet, you just can't stand up on the tee and wail at the ball.  Todd did a superb job of utilizing the natural features of the land and building some really stunning bunker and green complexes.  Though the course is relatively new and the turf is immature in places, Sandy is doing a great job of achieving the ideal maintenance meld with Todd's design (firm and fast is the way to go!).

With only two rounds on the course, I am only minimally familiar with Barona's strategic offerings.  Play on the relatively easy first hole is greatly impacted by a single large oak tree (the only tree that I can recall not being on the periphery of the course) guarding the last 75 yards to the hole.  I tried to go around it on the left side the first day and ended up underneath it in the mulch with a restricted backswing.  Went to the right on the second day and ended in a fairway trap.   One of the prettiest holes, the par 3 11th, utilizes a natural rock formation on the right, and though playing between 150 and 180, I didn't get within 10 yards of the putting surface either day.  The difficult 18th hole requires a tee shot close to the lake for the best approach to the green.  Hit it right and you are looking at a partially blind shot with water on the left, and a swale (?) to the seemingly safe right.  End up there and you are faced with an impossible chip running towards the water.  Frightening, but great fun.

The biggest problems that I saw at the course deal more with business and administrative aspects.  As a resort/casino course, it may be too difficult for the target market.  This could be alleviated somewhat by aggressive marshalling, making sure that patrons are playing the correct set of tees, thining out the native grasses immediately around the course and in front of the tees, and softening the fairways and greens.  I am a relatively fast player and it took my foursome (two of us walking) nearly 5 hours to play with nobody in front of us.   While it is a walkable course, the distances between tees and greens are not short and the terrain is difficult.  Management reports that nearly everyone rides, which, for me at least, making carts mandatory to overcome speed of play concerns would detract greatly from the experience.  The difficult, beautiful bunkers are also a problem to the average golfer, and from a maintenance standpoint, I wonder whether they can establish enough grass on the edges to retain their shape.

I believe that most on this site would greatly enjoy playing Barona Creek.  It incorporates many of the features that we deem important.  Todd is to be highly commended for his efforts here.  BTW, I heard that the irrigation system cost about a $1.5 Million.  Does anyone have the total project cost excluding the clubhouse and land?

    

[Richard_Goodale]

JohnK

By "Newcastle" I mean Royal County Down, which most people would seem to agree is a 3*** course.

Cheers

Rich

[John_D._Bernhardt]

Yes, Rich RCD is a 3 or whatever the highest number available is!! I find the first 10 holes at  Western Gailles to be exceptional and most of the last 8 very average. I find all but one hole at Machrahanish to be outstanding. Plus the flow of the course is challenging and balanced. Therefore I cannot see how you have it ahead of the great grand Machrahanish. Can you tell i like it. lol

[Bob_Huntley]

Rich:

When did they build the holes round the loop?

The par three down there is completely out of character, but the club and course is still one of my favourites.

[Richard_Goodale]

John B

I've only played Machrahanish once.  It might go up in my mind if and when I play again.

PS--I also have North Berwick at 1*, so M. is not in bad company!

Bob H

Are you referring to W Gailes?  If so, the 4-5 new holes (which were on the front 9 to the North, I think) were built in the late 70's/early 80's.  The first time I played the course in 1978 the old holes were still there, but the new holes were well under way.

[Gib_Papazian]

Getting back to the 12th at Barona, I don't have the huge problem with the green many other guys do because after getting burned on Saturday, I just hit a 3/4 driver to the left and kind of feathered a 9-iron to the center of the green as did Dave Hiser.

Moral of the story? Don't blast away. Where is it written that architects must accomodate brainless golfers?

The hole might be improved with some bunker feature to the left on the outside of the dogleg. The blindness is okay off the tee except that the fairway just sort of arbitrarily turns to desert and looks to be an incomplete thought.

I know that the idea of framing bunkers is anathema to our Treehouse dogma, but IMNSHO the right side fairway hazard needs to be balanced out visually on the opposite side to give resort players a clue.

It has seemed to me - albeit only playing the course 5 times - that at least one of my playing partners ends up blowing it through the fairway on the left into the desert every time I've played.

Alkso, I'm going to disagree with Shivas and continue to insist that the 16th green needs some type of upward flare in the back center - maybe even recontoured into the "boomerang" green Tommy suggested during construction.

Besides that, I would be absolutely thrilled to have created something so outstanding and believe more than ever that Barona at #100 on our Modern List is ridiculously low.  

[Lynn_Shackelford]

All in all a delightful place to play a round.
But.... they can remove the tree in the first fairway.  A bunker would be better.

[THuckaby2]

All in all a delightful place to play a round.
But.... they can remove the tree in the first fairway.  A bunker would be better.

Hmmm... interesting thought.  In my shit-giving way, I suggested blowing up the tree to Todd, and he just kinda laughed... but damn, picture another one of those great, rouugh bunkers right there - big enough to really give one pause when trying to make the carry... damn that does sound like an improvement.  Great thought, Lynn.

That is a very old, specimen tree though.  Maybe that's why it stays?

TH

[John_D._Bernhardt]

I like the tree, for a trap is too easy to blow over in this situation. Todd made the right call.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()